Print

Print


On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Jim Henry <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Sylvia Sotomayor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> So, I am feeling a bit poorly today and am therefore entertaining
>> myself by rereading some of my favorite books. While doing so I came
>> upon a passage that just begged to be translated. Here it is, slightly
>> modified to hide who is speaking (because then you could google the
>> name and know which book I'm reading, not that I'm really hiding it
>> from anyone who recognizes the passage or the style anyway):
>
> From the style, and what it implies about the plot, I'm guessing one
> of the Khaavren Romances by Steven Brust; but I'm not sure.  If it is
> Brust, I'm pretty sure the second speaker is Tazendra.

You guessed it! Including Tazendra as the second speaker. Khaavren
asks the first question. The dialogue appears in The Phoenix Guards.
As for your fabulous prize, it is this public acknowledgement on the
conlang list. :-)

> In gjâ-zym-byn:
>
>> "I wish to know who it is who wishes us stopped, and moreover, why?"
>
> {že rjâ-i sru-Ќ-van kun-van, mâ nǒ ʝâr-i sru-van hǒŋ ĝyl jâ-o Ќ-ť
> ĥy-i, kiň že mew rjâ-i: ?kujm nǒ o.}
>
> {že rjâ-i sru-Ќ-van kun-van
> this quest-at desire-1-V.STATE know-V.STATE
>
> mâ nǒ ʝâr-i sru-van
> person Q.WH experiencer-at desire-V.STATE
>
> hǒŋ ĝyl jâ-o Ќ-ť ĥy-i
> that interruption state-to 1-2 PAT-at
>
> kiň že mew rjâ-i
> and this also quest-at
>
> kujm nǒ o
> purpose Q.WH to
>
>> "Yes, why? For, if we do not know what we are doing, then it follows
>> no one else does either; and, if no one knows what we are going to do,
>> well then, why is someone so determined to prevent us from doing it?"
>
> {?kujm nǒ o vǒm. ʝǒj, ĉǒ Ќ-ť dâm-ř ryň mĭ-i hyw-van heŋ Ќ-ť ʝâr-i, ŝǒn
> kun-van heŋ mew mâ ble; kiň, ĉǒ že kâ-i kun-van heŋ mâ-bâ ʝâr-i, ryň
> lǒ ĉul-i ryň-zô ler Ќ-ť tu-i, hwǒ, gân nǒ ř Ќ-ť ĥy-i vy-źa-zô kǒ
> θĭ-cô-zô mâ kwǒ tu-i.}
>
> kujm nǒ o vǒm
> purpose Q.WH to yes
>
> ʝǒj, ĉǒ Ќ-ť dâm-ř ryň mĭ-i hyw-van heŋ Ќ-ť ʝâr-i
> because.inference if 1-2 source-from action TOP-at know-V.STATE not
> 1-2  experiencer-at
>
> ŝǒn kun-van heŋ mew mâ ble
> therefore.logical.necessity know-V.STATE not also person remaining
>
> kiň, ĉǒ že kâ-i kun-van heŋ mâ-bâ ʝâr-i
> and if this attention-at know-V.ACT not person-zero experiencer-at
>
> ryň lǒ ĉul-i ryň-zô ler Ќ-ť tu-i
> action REL perform-at do-V.ACT FUT 1-2 AGT-at
>
> hwǒ, gân nǒ ř Ќ-ť ĥy-i vy-źa-zô kǒ
> well purpose Q.WH from 1-2 PAT-at intend-AUG-V.ACT DEM
>
> θĭ-cô-zô mâ kwǒ tu-i
> help-OPP-V.ACT person some AGT-at
>
> gzb has distinct relativizers and interrogatives; there are a couple
> of places where I used the interrogative particle {nǒ} and I'm not
> 100% sure it wouldn't make more sense to use the relativizer {lǒ}
> instead.
>

In Kēlen, I was torn between using the tō conjunctions (why, because,
so) or the hi conjunctions (if, then), and it didn't make sense to use
both, so I opted for the first.
-S

-- 
Sylvia Sotomayor

The sooner I fall behind the more time I have to catch up.